Bristol v. Sullivan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bristol v. Sullivan

65 A.D.3d 1231, 885 N.Y.S.2d 431

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 22, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 65 A.D.3d 1231 (Bristol v. Sullivan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bristol v. Sullivan, 65 A.D.3d 1231, 885 N.Y.S.2d 431 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the respondents from proceeding with a criminal action entitled People v Bristol, pending in the County Court, Nassau County, under indictment No. 2346/08.

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

“Because of its extraordinary nature, prohibition is available only where there is a clear legal right, and then only when a court-in cases where judicial authority is challenged-acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers” (Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d 564, 569 [1988]; see Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352 [1986]; Matter of Barton v Griffin, 59 AD3d 615 [2009]). Skelos, J.P., Leventhal, Hall and Austin, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the respondents from proceeding with a criminal action entitled People v Bristol, pending in the County Court, Nassau County, under indictment No. 2346/08.

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

“Because of its extraordinary nature, prohibition is available only where there is a clear legal right, and then only when a court-in cases where judicial authority is challenged-acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers” (Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d 564, 569 [1988]; see Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352 [1986]; Matter of Barton v Griffin, 59 AD3d 615 [2009]). Skelos, J.P., Leventhal, Hall and Austin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 A.D.3d 1231, 885 N.Y.S.2d 431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bristol-v-sullivan-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack